On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit granted Michael Lacey bail pending the outcome of his appeal in the Backpage case. The court denied bail for his co-defendants, Jed Brunst and Scott Spear.
The following contains the analysis and opinions of the author. The author does not speak for the Backpage defendants.
On Thursday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted journalist Michael Lacey’s release from prison pending the outcome of his appeal in the Backpage case, while denying a similar request from Lacey’s co-defendants Scott Spear and John Brunst.
The court sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa in Phoenix, who quickly ordered Lacey set free on the same $1 million bond that secured his release after his 2018 arrest.
All three men have been in federal custody since turning themselves in on Sept. 11 to begin serving multi-year sentences for their Nov. 2023 convictions on charges connected with the former classified ads site, Backpage.com.
Lacey, 76, had been serving a five-year term on one count of international concealment money laundering.
Brunst, 72, and Spear, 74, are each serving 10-year sentences for various counts involving conspiracy, money-laundering, and violations of the U.S. Travel Act, which makes it illegal to use a means of interstate commerce to facilitate a business enterprise in breaking state laws against prostitution.
The key issue in determining release was whether an appeal raised a substantial issue that could lead to all convictions against a defendant being overturned.
In the case of Lacey — the former executive editor of the Village Voice Media newspaper chain, Backpage’s parent company — the court agreed that there was.
The court wrote:
“The district court found, and the government does not dispute, that Lacey is not likely to flee or to pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released. Moreover, Lacey has shown that his appeal raises a ‘substantial question’ of law or fact that is ‘fairly debatable’ and that, if determined favorably to him, is likely to result in reversal on the single count of conviction.”
Lacey’s appeal raised several issues, including the fact there was no concealment in the 2017 transfer of money to Hungary that resulted in the charge against him. Lacey filed timely notices with the government and paid all relevant taxes on the funds.
The three-judge panel did not identify which issue determined its ruling.
Lacey still has 34 counts outstanding for which the jury rendered no verdict. Earlier this year, prosecutors filed notice with the court that they intend to retry Lacey on the outstanding counts, but they later signaled their intention to await the outcome of the appeals process before going forward with a retrial.
Regarding Brunst and Spear, two former VVM executives, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the pair did not “raise a ‘substantial question’ of law or fact that is likely to result in reversal or a new trial on all counts of conviction, or a sentence with a term of imprisonment less than time served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.”
Brunst and Spear’s motion argued that there were serious problems at trial. Not only was the defense precluded from mounting a vigorous First Amendment defense, it was not allowed to address the state of mind of the defendants, attack the government’s repeated violation of attorney-client privilege, or effectively cross-examine the government’s chief witness, Carl Ferrer.
Tucson attorney Michael Piccarreta was part of the defense team early on in the case. A former president of the State Bar of Arizona, Piccarreta disagreed with the appellate court’s ruling regarding Brunst and Spear, but he said the decision would not determine the outcome of the full appeals process, which could take two years or more.
Piccarreta explained that the bail motions were like “pre-appeals” with shortened time frames that gave the judges “a flavor of the appeal.” The actual appeal will be a deliberative process and likely would involve a different three-judge panel.
He noted that on issues of release, the appellate court gave deference to the trial court. But with the actual appeal, the judges will have time to fully examine the pertinent issues involved.
“It’s hard to get everything in and create that picture for the judges in the shortened time period when the only issue is release as opposed to an appeal, where you write a lengthy brief on each of these issues,” Piccarreta said.
It’s unknown when Lacey will be outside prison walls. Check back with this site for updates.
Please also see:
Will the #Backpage3 Be Home for Christmas? One Might (Updated)
and
Within the Barred Bunker: Michael Lacey Writes from Prison
- Backpage Appeal Details Shocking Travesty of Justice - October 8, 2026
- Ninth Circuit Schedules Oral Arguments in Lacey Appeal - September 8, 2026
- Sex Workers React to the Oscar Triumph of ‘Anora’ - March 4, 2025
This is great news! Another DOJ abuse –
‘Tis about time. Lacey was railroaded and someone switched tracks, thank you very much! Welcome out!
Pam
Glad Lacey is going to be released shortly but Jed Brunst and Scott Spears are unfairly bearing the brunt of this terrible injustice. Can you write more on their behalf as well? People really should be outraged that these men are being treated like murders. Jed Brunst is a decent, honest person who has been taken from his family at 72 years old. These men were not allowed to defend themselves properly, evidence on their behalf was suppressed by a judge who is good friends with the prosecutors. Is that fair, neutral and just?
Your blog is like a beacon of light in the vast expanse of the internet. Your thoughtful analysis and insightful commentary never fail to leave a lasting impression. Thank you for all that you do.